![]() ![]() The vehicles that earned marginal or poor overall ratings generally struggled with both structural issues and high chest and pelvis injury measurements from both dummies, and there were many different reasons why the nine acceptable-rated vehicles fell short of a good rating. The B-pillar began to tear away from the frame during testing, which allowed the side of the vehicle “to crush inward almost to the center of the driver seat,” according to the analysis. The worst performer in this category was the HR-V, which was rated poor. While all 20 small SUVs received good scores for their structures in the original test, only eight earned good ratings for structural integrity in the new evaluation. ![]() In real-world side crashes, stronger structures are linked to higher survival rates, the safety group said. Only five vehicles earned good or acceptable scores across the board for these injury measures. The new test revealed wide discrepancies in the degree of protection the occupant compartment of these small SUVs provided for the pelvis and the chest. Each of the 20 vehicles received a rating of good, acceptable marginal or poor for overall performance as well as for the structural performance of the occupant compartment, and specific driver and passenger injury protection measures.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |